FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing “what the patent eligibility restoration act means for artificial intelligence inventions”;
• an article highlighting the upcoming oral argument in “a highly anticipated appeal that is expected to center on how courts come up with damages” in a case involving a “whopping $2.175 billion verdict”;
• an article discussing a “debate over aging Judges’ lifetime tenure,” a debate that has come into focus in light of “the recent sanction and suspension of Pauline Newman, the nation’s oldest active federal judge”; and
• an article summarizing how “Greece’s air force urged the Federal Circuit to revive its $23 million breach of contract lawsuit against the U.S. government over an arms deal for military surveillance equipment.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two dismissals were agreed upon by the parties, while one dismissal resulted from an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross appeal. Here are links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, ten amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioner in Rudisill v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a patent case, one in a veterans case, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two amicus briefs were filed in a Tucker Act case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a post-grant review proceeding and addresses claim construction, written description, enablement, and motions to amend practice and procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of an inter partes review and addresses claim construction and anticipation. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would order transfer, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. Notably, Judge Dyk concurred with the majority. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, both in patent cases. Finally the court released three nonprecedential orders summarily affirming judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about how “the Federal Circuit . . . revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial” of petitions for inter partes review;
• an article about the Federal Circuit also “reviv[ing] a patent-infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.” after a stipulation of non-infringement based on a district court’s claim constructions; and
• another article about a Federal Circuit opinion “determining that the PTAB required too much evidence to establish a motivation to combine prior art.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Northern District of California a case where Apple and other companies are challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s so-called Fintiv factors and, in particular, in the decision whether to institute inter partes review proceedings the role of the pendency of district-court infringement litigation involving the same patents. In the second opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for appellate attorney fees and costs following a Federal Circuit decision reversing and remanding a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders remand cases appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. Finally, five of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals and erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “clarifying the requirements for the disclosure of technology that is ready for patenting at a public event to qualify as being ‘in public use’”;
• an article about a Federal Circuit ruling finding “federal workers are generally not entitled to extra pay for being exposed to COVID-19 through their jobs”; and
• another article about the ramifications of “US Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s reinstatement of two companies she’d removed from high-profile [inter partes review] patent challenges.”